minutes (yy-mm-dd) 01-01-10&13&17&22&31 regrets were received from: trustees sam...

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board January 10, 2001

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\Archive2001\G04\Public\101.doc)sec.1530 1

Special MeetingJanuary 10, 2001

A Special Meeting of the Toronto District School Board convened at 7:55 p.m. on Wednesday,January 10, 2001, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with IreneAtkinson, Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield, ShelleyCarroll, Judi Codd, Bruce Davis, Christine Ferreira, Paula Fletcher, Scott Harrison, ShelleyLaskin, Pauline Ling, Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, Nellie Pedro, Patrick Rutledge,Sheila Ward and Kathleen Wynne.

Regrets were received from: Trustees Sam Basra, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Gerri Gershon,Elizabeth Hill, Elizebeth Moyer and Stephnie Payne.

1. Purpose of the Meeting

The meeting was called to consider an update on teacher negotiations.

2. Declaration of Possible Conflict of Interest

Trustee Atkinson declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter of Negotiationsas contained in Report No. 1 of the Committee of the Whole (Private) as Trustee Atkinson’sdaughter is a member of OSSTF, District 12. Trustee Atkinson was not present during privatediscussion nor did she take part in the discussion or vote on the matter in public.

3. Resolution Into Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

On a motion by Trustee Wynne, seconded by Trustee Codd, the meeting resolved intoCommittee of the Whole (Private Session) with Trustee Donna Cansfield, Vice-Chair of theBoard, presiding.

4. Reconvene

The Special Board reconvened at 12:01 a.m., Thursday, January 11, 2001, to consider ReportNo. 1 of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session).

5. Report No. 1 of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session), January 10,2001

Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Ward moved: That Report No. 1 of the Committee of theWhole (Private Session), January 10, 2001, be adopted.

The motion was carried.


2 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\Archive2001\G04\Public\101.doc)sec.1530

6. Adjournment

At 12:03 a.m., Thursday, January 11, 2001, on a motion by Trustee Wynne, seconded by TrusteeHarrison, the Special Board Meeting adjourned.

Marguerite Jackson Irene AtkinsonDirector of Education and Secretary-Treasurer Chair of the Board

Confirmed by the Board of Education at the meetingheld on January 10, 2001.

__________________________________Irene Atkinson, Chair of the Board

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board January 10, 2001Committee of the Whole, Report No. 1


Report No. 1 of the Committee of the Whole(Private Session)

January 10, 2001

To the Chair and Members ofthe Toronto District School Board:

A meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) convened at 7:56 p.m. onWednesday, January 10, 2001, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto,Ontario, with Donna Cansfield, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield,Shelley Carroll, Judi Codd, Bruce Davis, Christine Ferreira, Paula Fletcher, ScottHarrison, Shelley Laskin, Pauline Ling, Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, NelliePedro, Patrick Rutledge, Sheila Ward and Kathleen Wynne.

Regrets were received from: Trustees Sam Basra, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Gerri Gershon,Elizabeth Hill, Elizebeth Moyer and Stephnie Payne.


Trustee Atkinson declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter ofNegotiations as her daughter is a member of OSSTF, District 12. Trustee Atkinson wasnot present during discussion or voting on this matter.

8. Negotiations Update

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that recommendations concerningteacher negotiations as outlined in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole beapproved.

Respectfully submitted,

Donna CansfieldChair of the Committee

Adopted January 11, 2001



Blank Page




A Special Meeting of the Toronto District School Board convened at 4:10 p.m. onSaturday, January 13, 2001, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario,with Donna Cansfield, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Donna Cansfield, Judi Codd, BruceDavis, Christine Ferreira, Paula Fletcher, Scott Harrison, Elizabeth Hill, Shelley Laskin,Pauline Ling, Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, Stephnie Payne, Nellie Pedro,Patrick Rutledge, Sheila Ward and Kathleen Wynne.

Regrets were received from: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Sam Basra, Shelley Carroll, Cary-Meagher, Sheila Gerri Gershon and Elizebeth Moyer.


The meeting was called to consider an update on teacher negotiations.

8. Resolution to Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

On a motion by Trustee Ferreira, seconded by Trustee Harrison, the meeting resolvedinto Committee of the Whole (Private Session) with Trustee Donna Cansfield, Vice-Chairof the Board, presiding.

9. Report No. 2 of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session), January13, 2001

Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Ward moved: That Report No. 2 of theCommittee of the Whole (Private Session), January 13, 2001, be adopted.The motion was carried.

Following consideration of this matter, the Board again resolved into Committee of theWhole (Private Session) to continue consideration of private negotiations matters.

10. Adjournment

At 7:27 p.m., while within Committee of the Whole (Private Session), the meetingadjourned for want of a quorum. Trustees Cansfield, Fletcher, Hill, Laskin, Ling,Mankovsky, McNaughton, Payne, Pedro and Wynne were present.

Marguerite Jackson Donna CansfieldDirector of Education and Secretary-Treasurer Vice-Chair of the Board



Minutes of the Toronto District School Board January 13, 2001Committee of the Whole (Private Session), Report No. 2



January 13, 2001


A meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) convened at 4:11 p.m. onSaturday, January 13, 2001, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario,with Donna Cansfield, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Donna Cansfield, Judi Codd, BruceDavis, Christine Ferreira, Paula Fletcher, Scott Harrison, Elizabeth Hill, Shelley Laskin,Pauline Ling, Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, Stephnie Payne, Nellie Pedro,Patrick Rutledge, Sheila Ward and Kathleen Wynne.

Regrets were received from: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Sam Basra, Shelley Carroll, SheilaCary-Meagher, Gerri Gershon and Elizebeth Moyer.






Minutes of the Toronto District School Board January 17, 2001Inaugural Meeting


Inaugural MeetingJanuary 17, 2001

An Inaugural Meeting of the Toronto District School Board was held on Wednesday,January 17, 2001, at Ursula Franklin Academy.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Sam Basra, DonnaCansfield, Shelley Carroll, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira, PaulaFletcher, Gerri Gershon, Scott Harrison, Elizabeth Hill, Shelley Laskin, Pauline Ling,Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, Elizebeth Moyer, Nellie Pedro, Sheila Ward andKathleen Wynne.

Regrets were received from: Trustees Bruce Davis, Stephnie Payne and PatrickRutledge,.

11. Chair’s Inaugural Address

Irene Atkinson, Chair of the Board, delivered her inaugural address as follows:

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen:

Thank you for joining us here tonight at the inaugural meeting of thesecond term of the Toronto District School Board. It seems fitting to holdthe inaugural board meeting in one of our schools to underscore the reasonthat we are all involved in public education in the first place.

I became interested in education purely by accident. Many years agowhen my oldest daughter was three months old, I read an article in amagazine about Dr. Maria Montessori, the world famous Italian educator,who improved the performance of high-risk inner-city children in Romeby using methodology and apparatus she had designed for children. Ipersuaded the Public Library to purchase and stock Dr. Montessori’sbooks, and after reading them was absolutely convinced of the value andimportance of early childhood education. As Plato said 300 years beforethe birth of Christ, “The direction in which education starts a man willdetermine his future life.”

I embraced her ideas on child raising, but at one point my husband drewthe line when I announced that there was no need to buy a crib as Maggiewould crawl around until she got tired and would curl up to go to sleep insome cozy corner. I won’t tell you what he said, but suffice it to say thathe immediately went out and returned with a crib.

My other mistaken belief was when I announced to the children that therewas cold cabbage in the bottom of the fridge and ice cream in the freezer.Dr. Montessori maintained that the children would choose whichever wasneeded in their diet--my children always chose the ice cream.



I couldn’t afford to buy the Montessori apparatus for my children so Istarted a nursery school, which still runs to this day, using the Montessorimethodology and apparatus. A few years later I established andadministered a day care centre, which operated for twenty-five years underthe auspices of a local church.

Again, by accident, I became a trustee. My children were attending thelocal elementary school and the principal sent home a letter advising usthat the school board was going to balance the budget by increasing classsize. Only the week before I had watched a team of painters carefullypainting graphics on the walls of the halls. I felt that small classes weremore important than graphics. I called one of the ward trustees tocomplain and was told that the principal had been ordered downtown toheadquarters for disciplinary measures as such a communication to parentswas unheard of and not acceptable. The principal was Jesse Flis who laterbecame the Member of Parliament for the area, until his retirement fiveyears ago.

When I called the other trustee, who was 86 years of age at the time, sheadvised me that she had recently attended a funeral and the deceased wasnot laid out very well. And that was the highpoint of the conversation.

I decided that we needed better representation and a voice for parents onthe school board so I started activating among parents I knew. Acandidate search committee was formed and it ended up that I was ‘it’.150 young mothers from the neighbourhood, the nursery school and theday care centre became politically involved for the first time in their lives,and we won a seat on the school board for the old Ward 2 in the formerCity of Toronto.

For those trustees who are newly elected and feeling overwhelmed, don’tdespair. There was never a trustee who was less prepared for the positionthan I was. I had never heard of the Metro School Board, I didn’t knowthere were committees, I had never heard of Robert’s Rules of Order, andI didn’t open my mouth for the first year. But I listened, asked questionsand learned.

The ‘70s and ‘80s and early ‘90s were great years to be a trustee and greatyears for education. We were financially totally self-sufficient. Schoolboards had the power to determine how much we thought should be spenton education to respond to the needs of our students and the expectationsof our communities. We all fought furiously to ensure that we got our fairshare, or more if possible, of the Metro Toronto School Board budget.Local autonomy and priorities were zealously guarded.

Many innovative and exciting programs were introduced. Technologywas introduced to the schools. Schools were opened up after school and



on weekends for members of the public to use--we wanted ourcommunities to enjoy the schools they had bought and paid for. Newschools were built and major renovations were undertaken.

Over the years the role of a trustee changed from a more or less volunteerjob with an honorarium, to, for some Boards, a full-time position with asalary. When I first started the honorarium was $3,500 per year, one-thirdtax-free. At that time a house on my street sold for $50,000, last year thesame house sold for over half a million dollars. A movie cost 50 cents.With the adoption of Bill 160, The Fewer School Boards Act, we havecome full circle, but the territories we represent have vastly increased.The seven English public school boards in Metropolitan Toronto, eachwith a proud heritage and distinctive culture had to merge and become thelargest school board in Canada.

For the past decade, school boards in Toronto have seen provincialgovernments come and go--all have tried to weaken the local autonomy ofschool boards and shift control of Toronto’s property taxes to Queen’sPark. The Liberals had pooling where public tax dollars were transferredto the separate school board, the NDP had the Social Contract and our“negative” grant, and now, the Conservatives have been able to removehundreds of millions of dollars from public schools and municipalservices. When the provincial funding model is fully implemented therewill be half a billion dollars less in our schools than in 1995--thisstaggering amount represents 25% of our total budget.

Nobody objects to finding efficiencies, but a funding model that removesone-quarter of our budget cannot be implemented without devastating ourschool system.

And that’s where trustees come in. The provincial government tried todiminish the effectiveness of trustees by removing their salaries andjurisdiction over finances and programs. Yet we remain constant.Trustees are still strong advocates for public education. The trustees inthis room tonight are here because you care about the students of Toronto.And, you are all democratically elected representatives of the people ofToronto. Although we have many differences, we share a common beliefin the importance of public education for our young people.

Politics is a noble profession: too often we forget the importance of publicservice and the value of the people who step forward to serve. Of the 22trustees elected on November 13, 2000, ten are newly elected , some,albeit, with almost as much experience as returning trustees. This newBoard will be facing major decisions and challenges over the next threeyears.



Our agenda has everything to do with education and responding to ourcommunities without fear of the quasi-criminal sanctions under Bill 74.This legislation would have trustees, who represent their constituentsrather than the will and direction of the Minister, punished with fines,possible jail terms, and disqualification from running in municipalelections. There is no appeal to the Courts. The Minister is above the law.

Perhaps the Government should pay heed to the words of the Scottishpoet, Robbie Burns, in his address to A Mouse:

But, Mousie, thou art no thy laneIn proving foresight may be vain!The best-laid schemes o’ mice and menGang aft a-gley,And lea’e us nought but grief and painFor promised joy.

We have much in our favour.

We have a City filled with people who value quality public education

• who don’t want local schools closed• who want their schools open to their community at reasonable permit

rates• who want adult education• who value supports for our immigrant students and our inner city

children• who want quality music and arts programs and science labs and

computers that prepare students for the future• who want libraries with the most up-to-date technology run by teacher-

librarians and• who want our students to continue to perform above the provincial

average in EQAO tests.

With all the commotion going on, it’s easy to forget that there are manytriumphs in our system. On behalf of my fellow Board members, I thankeveryone who works and participates in our school system – your effortsmake the difference.

Our students excel in every area: arts, science, sports, music, andcommunity service. I’d like to mention just a few of theiraccomplishments:

• Two Toronto public school students were the first Canadian winnersfor the largest science and technology awards program in NorthAmerica, the Toshiba 2001 ExploraVision Awards



• A TDSB student was recipient of the Wayne and Walter GretskyFoundation for the Blind Youth of Canada Scholarship

• One of our schools received the 1999 United Way Spirit StudentCampaign Award

• Three of the top four winners in this year’s Canadian OpenMathematics Challenge were from TDSB schools

• And one that’s near to my heart--Parkdale CI students and staff wholaunched a collection of writings dealing with child poverty entitledNot Poor in Spirit and were recognized for their volunteer work in theschool community.

Our teachers and support staff win prestigious national and international awardseach year -- staff recognition includes:

• The Prime Minister’s Award for Teaching Excellence and a GovernorGeneral’s Award for Excellence in teaching Canadian history

• ISO 9002 Registration for our caretaking staff who achieved thisworld-wide recognition for quality business procedures

• The Dr. Roberta Bondar Millennium Award of excellence• An Award of Excellence award for the TDSB’s on-line learning

resource -- the Knowledge NETwork• Recognition by the Toronto Police for the TDSB’s commitment to the

School Safety Patrol Program.

I could go on for hours – the highlights I mentioned are onlyrepresentative of our unsurpassed record of excellence.

What is our job?

• We need to ensure that we can continue providing excellent educationeven though we have less money and more students. And that is achallenge.

• We need to make sure that our students have the opportunity to enjoythe widest range of programs and services possible so they can choosewhatever future they want

• We need to get a provincial funding model that pays for the real costsof education, not tax breaks. And we need to lead our parents andcommunity in a united effort to convince the government that this isfundamental to the well being of our society.

• We need to ensure that our school system can attract highly qualifiedteachers so that our students are taught by the best and brightestteachers in every subject.



My dream for the future of our school system is that every child whoenters our doors will be given the opportunity and the supports to reachher or his full potential.

We will do everything within our power to make Toronto public schoolsthe best in the world. The voters of Toronto have put their faith in us toprotect and preserve our schools and we will do our utmost to fulfill theirtrust. I have no doubt but that these challenges can be met. If we have anaccord and work together, we can arrive where we want to be with apublic education system second to none.

Thank you and good night.







A Special Meeting of the Toronto District School Board convened at 4:04 p.m. onMonday, January 22, 2001, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario,with Donna Cansfield, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield, SheilaCary-Meagher, Judi Codd, Bruce Davis, Christine Ferreira, Paula Fletcher, GerriGershon, Elizabeth Hill, Shelley Laskin, Pauline Ling, Sheine Mankovsky, RonMcNaughton, Elizebeth Moyer, Nellie Pedro, Patrick Rutledge, Sheila Ward andKathleen Wynne.

Regrets were received from: Trustees Sam Basra, Shelley Carroll, Scott Harrison andStephnie Payne.


The meeting was called to consider teacher negotiations.

13. Declarations of Possible Conflict of Interest

Trustee Atkinson declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter ofNegotiations as contained in Report No. 3 of the Committee of the Whole (Private) andfor the Special Board meeting held on January 13, 2001, (for which she was absent) asher daughter is a member of OSSTF.

Trustee Cary-Meagher declared a possible conflicts of interest with regard to the matterof Negotiations as contained in Report No. 3 of the Committee of the Whole (Private)and for the Special Board meetings held on January 10 and 13, 2001, (for which she wasabsent) as her daughter is a member of OSSTF.

The members were not present during private discussions and did not take part in thediscussion or voting on the matter in public.

14. Resolution to Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

On a motion by Trustee Codd, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, the meeting resolved intoCommittee of the Whole (Private Session) with Trustee Donna Cansfield, Vice-Chair ofthe Board, presiding.

15. Report No. 3 of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session), January22, 2001

Trustee Moyer, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That Report No. 3 of theCommittee of the Whole (Private Session), January 22, 2001, be adopted.




16. Adjournment

At 6:05 p.m., on a motion by Trustee McNaughton, seconded by Trustee Rutledge, theSpecial Board Meeting adjourned.

Marguerite Jackson Donna CansfieldDirector of Education and Secretary-Treasurer Vice-Chair of the Board



Minutes of the Toronto District School Board January 22, 2001Committee of the Whole, Report No. 3



January 22, 2001


A Meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) convened at 4:11 p.m. onMonday, January 22, 2001, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario,with Donna Cansfield, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield, SheilaCary-Meagher, Judi Codd, Bruce Davis, Christine Ferreira, Paula Fletcher, GerriGershon, Elizabeth Hill, Shelley Laskin, Pauline Ling, Sheine Mankovsky, RonMcNaughton, Elizebeth Moyer, Nellie Pedro, Patrick Rutledge, Sheila Ward andKathleen Wynne.

Regrets were received from: Trustees Sam Basra, Shelley Carroll, Scott Harrison and.Stephnie Payne.


Trustees Atkinson and Cary-Meagher declared possible conflicts of interest with regardto the matter of Negotiations as:

(a) Trustee Atkinson’s daughter is a member of OSSTF;

(b) Trustee Cary-Meagher’s daughter is a member of OSSTF.

The members were not present during the discussion or voting on this matter.








Blank Page



Regular MeetingJanuary 31, 2001

A Regular Meeting of the Toronto District School Board convened at 6:45 p.m. onWednesday, January 31, 2001, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto,Ontario, with Irene Atkinson, Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Sam Basra, DonnaCansfield, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Judi Codd, Bruce Davis, Christine Ferreira, PaulaFletcher, Gerri Gershon, Scott Harrison, Elizabeth Hill, Shelley Laskin, Pauline Ling,Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, Stephnie Payne, Nellie Pedro, Patrick Rutledge,Sheila Ward and Kathleen Wynne.

Regrets were received from Trustees Shelley Carroll and Elizebeth Moyer.

19. Approval of Agenda

Trustee Pedro, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved: That the agenda be approved.


With the agreement of the members, agenda items were reordered several times duringthe meeting as reflected in these minutes.

20. Temporary Chair

Trustee Cansfield, Vice-Chair of the Board, presided from time to time during themeeting.

21. Confirmation of Minutes

Trustee Mankovsky, seconded by Trustee Harrison, moved: That the minutes of theOrganizational Board Meeting held on December 6, 2000, be confirmed.


Trustee Mankovsky, seconded by Trustee Harrison, moved: That the minutes of theRegular Board Meeting held on December 13, 2000, be confirmed.



Trustees Atkinson and Cary-Meagher declared possible conflicts of interest with regardto the matter of Secondary Teacher Negotiations. Although on the agenda, this matterwas not considered by the Committee of the Whole (see page 55, Item 5) as:

(a) Trustee Atkinson’s daughter is a member of OSSTF, District 12;

(b) Trustee Cary-Meagher’s daughter is a member of OSSTF, District 12.



Trustee Davis declared a possible conflict of interest regarding a private property matter.

Trustee Davis was not present during private discussion and did not take part in thediscussion or voting on this matters in public.

23. Delegations

The following oral delegations were heard in accordance with the Board’s procedure forhearing delegations:

(a) Bruce Public School and Bathurst Heights Secondary School Remaining Open(considered by the Board, February 7, 2001)

• Nicole King, School Council Secretary, Bruce Public School• Svetlana Nemirovskaya, Student, Bathurst Heights Secondary School

(b) Student Accommodation at Thorncliffe Park ES (related to (a) above)

• Mansur Khan, Co-chair, Thorncliffe ES School, School Advisory Council• Judy Bright, Co-chair, Thorncliffe Park ES, School Advisory Council

(c) Expanded Heather Heights Area Review School: Changes to School AttendanceAreas Resulting from School Closures, Phase Two (see page 32)

• Jill Watson, Principal, Woburn Junior Public School• Jayesh Shah, Chair, Woburn Junior Public School, School Council

(d) New Caretaking Staffing Model: Impact on Matrons (considered by the Board,February 7, 2001)

• John Weatherup, President, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Local4400

(e) Program Rationalization: Proposed Implementation Plan for Optional FrenchProgram (considered by the Board, February 14, 2001)

• Julian Heller, on behalf of John Fisher Parents’ Association

The following written submissions in lieu of delegation was presented in accordance withthe Board’s procedure for delegations:

Program Rationalization: Proposed Implementation Plan for Optional French Program(considered by the Board, February 14, 2001)

• French-As-A-Second Language Community Liaison Group Steering Committee onbehalf of the French-As-A-Second Language Community Liaison Group

• Dagmar Kanzler, West President, French Immersion Parents’ Association



Trustee Cansfield, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That the written submissionsin lieu of a delegation be received.


24. Report No. 1, Business and Facilities Committee, January 24, 2001 (asamended, see page 31)

Trustee Ward, seconded by Trustee Pedro, moved: That Report No. 1, Business andFacilities Committee, January 24, 2001, be adopted.

Trustee Wynne, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That consideration of Items 3,4, 5 and 6 as contained in Report No. 1, Business and Facilities Committee, January24, 2001, be postponed to a Special Board meeting to be held on February 7, 2001.

The motion to postpone consideration was carried.

Item 7: Expanded Heather Heights Area Review School: Changes to School AttendanceAreas Resulting from School Closures, Phase Two (considered by the Board, February 7,2001)

Trustee Harrison, seconded by Trustee Davis, moved in amendment: That (ii) be addedto Recommendation (c) as follows:

That notwithstanding the above and the Board’s transportation policy, bustransportation be provided for the Grade 6 students at Woburn Junior PublicSchool and that this matter re reviewed in a year’s time.

Trustee Codd, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved in amendment to the amendment:That (iii) be added to Recommendation (c) as follows:

That staff work with the local community to address safety concerns.

The amendment to the amendment was carried.

The amendment was carried.

Therefore, Recommendation (c) is as follows:

(c) (i) That effective June 30, 2001, the Grades 5 and 6 students from the WoburnJunior Public School attendance area be accommodated at Heather HeightsJunior Public School with transportation provided according to the Board’Policy E.01: Transportation of Students;

(ii) That notwithstanding the above and the Board’s transportation policy, bustransportation be provided for the Grade 6 students at Woburn Junior PublicSchool and that this matter be reviewed in a year’s time;

(iii) That staff work with the community to address safety concerns.



Item 8: Purchasing Policy and Collaborative Venture (see page 35)

Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Wynne, moved in amendment: ThatRecommendations (c) and (d) be added as follows:

(c) That TDSB Policy E.03: Purchasing, be set aside in emergency situations, withthe approval of the Chair of the Business and Facilities Committee and theChair of the Board, where there is an imminent safety risk to students or staffor a risk of property damage;

(d) That a reporting mechanism be developed by purchasing staff in consultationwith the Chair of the Board, the Director of Education, the Chair of theBusiness and Facilities Committee and Trustee Davis to facilitate the timelyand relevant distribution of purchasing information to the Business andFacilities Committee and the Board, as appropriate.

Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Gershon, moved: That consideration ofrecommendation (c) be postponed pending a report from the Director providing alegal opinion on the recommendation.

The motion to postpone consideration was carried.

The amendment to add Recommendations (d) above (now (c)) was carried.

Item 9: Request for Proposal: Storage Area Network (see page 42)

Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Ward, moved in amendment: That therecommendations of the officials (shown as (a) and (b) below) be added, that therecommendation of the committee become Recommendation (c), and thatRecommendations (d) be added so that the following Recommendations (a) to (d) beapproved:

(a) That Dell Computer Corporation be approved as the vendor of record forstorage and associated backup systems and warranty for a three-year period,with an initial purchase of five terabytes of storage, associated backup systemsand warranty valued at approximately $1,070,000;

(b) That the implementation and communication strategy be approved, inprinciple;

(c) That an independent consulting report on the state of the TDSB’s computersystems and procedures be commissioned and prepared for consideration bythe Audit Committee and the Business and Facilities Committee by March 31,2001;

(d) That pending the outcome of the Program and School Services Committee’sreview of the Information and Technology policy and its impact oncurriculum, that the Information and Technology department establish aprotocol to minimize the storage requirements of system users.




Item 16 (c): Snow Removal

Although the Business and Facilities Committee postponed consideration of this matter(see page 48), the Board decided to consider the following motion.

Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Fletcher, moved:

(a) That Facility Services staff immediately canvass school administrators toidentify unsafe sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, school entrances, walkways,portable pathways and paved play areas to determine which areas requiresnow clearing, salting or sanding;

(b) That unsafe areas be immediately cleared of the dangerous conditions oraccess to these areas be controlled or prohibited to minimize the risk tostudents, staff and school visitors;

(c) That individual school budgets not be charged for any additional expense ofproviding this service.

Trustee Wynne, seconded by Trustee Cary-Meagher, moved in amendment: That “andwhether the situation is worse this year because of the loss of caretaking staff” beadded to Recommendation (a).


Trustee Gershon, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That the above motion bereferred to the Budget Committee for consideration and report to the Board.

The motion to refer was carried.

The main motion to adopt Items 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, of Report No. 1 of theBusiness and Facilities Committee, January 24, 2001, as amended, was carried.

25. Motion re Time Schedule and Organization of Board and CommitteeAgendas

Trustee Harrison, seconded by Trustee Rutledge, moved:

Whereas, agendas for Board and committee meetings involve extensive amounts ofbusiness that the Board is required to consider; and

Whereas, some members are not able to remain in attendance when meetings areextended past the 11:00 p.m. ending time established by the Board’s Ending Timeprocedure; and

Whereas, the Board’s Bylaw 4.3 states: “The Chair, in consultation with theDirector, will be responsible for the content of agendas for regular Boardmeetings”;



THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

(a) That the Chair, in consultation with the Director, organize items on Board andcommittee agendas according to a time schedule;

(b) That all agenda items for decision be scheduled for completion before 12midnight;

(c) That appropriate adjustments be made to the Board’s Ending Timeprocedure.

Trustee Ferreira, seconded by Trustee McNaughton, moved in amendment: That thetime of 12 midnight in Recommendation (b) be changed to 11:00 p.m.


The main motion, as amended, was carried.

26. Communication

The Board considered a communication from the City of Toronto re Representation onthe Toronto Pedestrian Committee.

Trustee Ferreira, seconded by Trustee McNaughton, moved:

(a) That the Board appoint a representative to serve on the City of Toronto’sToronto Pedestrian Committee;

(b) That the Chair of the Board select the representative.


27. Good News: TDSB Staff and Students

Trustee Ward, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That congratulations of theBoard be extended to:

(a) North Kipling Junior-Middle School students for being awarded the 2000United Way CN Tower Stair Climb for Largest Student Team. The event wasorganized by Laurie Thomas, teacher;

(b) Joyce PS and Parkdale PS for being two of the seven Ontario schools whohave been selected for the Innovative Models of Learning Project. Thisproject is being implemented by the Ontario Knowledge Network forLearning and driven by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry ofColleges and Universities with the intent to integrate technology throughoutthe curriculum;

(c) Maddison Adams, Grade 3 student at Duke of Connaught PS, on havingreceived the Humanitarian Award from Toronto Police Services for havingsuccessfully helped another student, who was in grave danger in theplayground, to safety;



(d) George Harvey CI on being acknowledged as a CISCO Regional NetworkingAcademy. This “cybridge" initiative encourages students in pro-activelearning in the use of IT to achieve high standards in research, problemsolving, critical thinking and effective presentation of ideas;

(e) Eleonor Lentini, Teacher, Silverthorn Junior PS on being selected to receivethe Annual Reading Award from the East York-Scarborough ReadingAssociation Inc. for exemplary work with both students and teachers in thearea of literacy.

(f) Tara Simpson, student at Seventh Street Junior School on having her poem,“My Dad’s” selected as one of the poems to be published in the TorontoTransit Commission’s Poetry on the Way project. Her poem will beprominently displayed in advertising spaces on more than 2,400 TTC vehicles.


28. Bylaw Revisions

The Board considered a report from the Director of Education giving written notice ofbylaw revisions for consideration at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. Writtennotice of Bylaw revisions must be given at the Board meeting previous to the meeting atwhich the revision is to be considered. These revisions arise from decisions madeconcerning committee structure at the December 13, 2000, Board meeting.

Replace Bylaw 1.3, (iii), with the following:

“(iii) Members of the standing committees:

(a) Budget Committee, five (5) members from the 20 members other than the Chairand Vice-Chair of the Board;

(b) Business and Facilities Committee, five (5) members from the 15 members otherthan the members of the Budget Committee and the Chair and Vice-Chair of theBoard;

(c) Human Resources and Staff Development Committee, five (5) members from the10 members other than the members of the Budget Committee, the Business andFacilities Committee and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board;

(d) Program and School Services Committee, the remaining five (5) members otherthan the members of the Budget Committee, the Business and Facilities Committee,the HR&SD Committee and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board”

Add 1.3, (iv) as follows:

“(iv) Standing committee chairs (to be elected by the members of the Board).”

Revise 1.4 as follows:



“Establishment of the Chair’s Committee, consisting of the Chair, the Vice-Chair, thechairs of the standing committees and the Past Chair (if available).”

Revise Bylaw 4.1 from “. . . regular Board and Standing Committee meetings . . .” to “. . .regular Board and standing committee meetings . . .”

Revise Bylaw 4.6, Order of Business by reversing 9 and 10 and revising 10 (now No. 9)as follows:

“9. Consideration of notices of motion, in accordance with procedures established bythe Board.”

Add a new Bylaw 6.2, Quorum, as follows:

“6.2 For standing committees, quorum is a majority of the members of the committee.The Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Board will count for quorum if in attendance.”

Renumber the existing 6.2 as 6.3.

Add a new Bylaw 7.3:

“7.3 For standing committee meetings, members of the Board who are not members ofthe committee may vote on all matters except a motion to adjourn.”

Replace Bylaw 11 in its entirety with:

11. Standing Committees

“11.1 The standing committees of the Board are:

• Budget Committee• Business and Facilities Committee• Human Resources and Staff Development• Program and School Services

“11.2 Terms of reference for each committee will be as decided by the Board.

11.3 Each standing committee will report (and recommend) on all matters referred to itby the Board, other committees, the Parent-Community Network, the Director andtrustees who represent their ward forums and constituents.

11.4 Each standing committee will hear delegations in accordance with the procedurefor hearing delegations established by the Board.”

Delete Bylaw 13, Programs, Services and Finance Committee.

Renumber Bylaw 14, Establishment of Special Committees and Subcommittees, toBylaw 13, and change the reference in Bylaw 13.6 to “(See Bylaw 4.1, Page 3 – scheduleof Board and standing committee meetings.)”



Renumber Bylaw 15, Rules Governing Committee Meetings, to 14, and revise as follows:

14.1 In this section, unless stated otherwise, committee means the standingcommittees, the Chair’s Committee, special committees and subcommittees.

Add the following sentence to 14.4:

“… In the case of a standing committee, the election will take place at the next Boardmeeting after the office of standing committee chair becomes vacant.”

Revise the reference to “Co-Chairs of the Standing Committee” in Bylaw 14.7 to “chairsof the standing committees” and revise “Standing Committee” to “standing committee.”

Revise the first reference to “the Standing Committee” in Bylaw 14.8 to “the standingcommittees”, and in the second reference to “the standing committee.”

Revise the reference to “Standing Committee” in Bylaw 14.9 to “standing committee.”

Renumber Bylaw 16, Revisions to Bylaws, to Bylaw 15.

Trustee Ward, seconded by Trustee Pedro, moved: That notice of the above revisionsto the Board’s Bylaws be given for consideration at the next regularly scheduledBoard meeting

The motion to give notice of revisions to the bylaws was carried.

29. Proposed Meeting Schedule for the Year 2001

The Board considered a report from the Director of Education presenting a meetingschedule for Board and committee meetings for 2001.

At its meeting held on December 13, 2001, the Board established four committees tomeet at least once a month in accordance with an approved meeting schedule and decidedto hold two Board meetings per month.

The meeting schedule (below) has been developed in consultation with the committeechairs. It has been adjusted for February to reflect immediate needs that have beenidentified. For the remainder of the year it reflects one regularly scheduled meeting andtwo regularly scheduled Board meetings per month, summer months excluded. Eachcommittee may schedule additional meetings as required.

Unless otherwise noted:• Regular and Special Board meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. and are held in the

Board Room, First Floor, 155 College Street• Committee meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. and are held in the Main Committee

Room, First Floor, 155 College StreetFebruary 7 Special BoardFebruary 14 Regular BoardFebruary 20 Human Resources and Staff Development Committee



February 21 Budget CommitteeFebruary 22 Business and Facilities CommitteeFebruary 26 Program and School Services CommitteeFebruary 28 Regular BoardMarch 5 Program and School Services CommitteeMarch 7 Regular Board (to be confirmed)March 8 Business and Facilities CommitteeMarch 20 Human Resources and Staff Development CommitteeMarch 21 Budget CommitteeMarch 28 Regular BoardApril 2 Program and School Services CommitteeApril 5 Business and Facilities CommitteeApril 11 Regular BoardApril 17 Human Resources and Staff Development CommitteeApril 18 Budget CommitteeApril 25 Regular BoardApril 30 Program and School Services CommitteeMay 3 Business and Facilities CommitteeMay 9 Regular BoardMay 15 Human Resources and Staff Development CommitteeMay 16 Budget CommitteeMay 23 Regular BoardJune 4 Program and School Services CommitteeJune 7 Business and Facilities CommitteeJune 13 Regular BoardJune 19 Human Resources and Staff Development CommitteeJune 20 Budget CommitteeJune 27 Regular BoardJuly 4 Regular Board

August 29 Regular Board

September 4 Program and School Services CommitteeSeptember 6 Business and Facilities CommitteeSeptember 10 Human Resources and Staff Development CommitteeSeptember 12 Regular BoardSeptember 20 Budget CommitteeSeptember 25 Regular Board (Tuesday)



October 2 Program and School Services CommitteeOctober 4 Business and Facilities CommitteeOctober 10 Regular BoardOctober 16 Human Resources and Staff Development CommitteeOctober 17 Budget CommitteeOctober 24 Regular BoardNovember 5 Program and School Services CommitteeNovember 8 Business and Facilities CommitteeNovember 14 Regular BoardNovember 20 Human Resources and Staff Development CommitteeNovember 21 Budget CommitteeNovember 28 Regular BoardDecember 5 Organizational BoardDecember 12 Regular Board

During discussion of this matter, there was agreement that adjustments would be made tothe schedule and those adjustments are reflected above.

Trustee Cary-Meagher, seconded by Trustee Wynne, moved: That the Board andcommittee meeting schedule for 2001 be approved.


30. Representation on the Child Care in Schools Advisory Committee

The Board considered a report from the officials requesting that the Board appoint arepresentative to the Child Care in Schools Advisory Committee.

On October 28, 1998, the Board made the following decision:

(a) That the Board establish the Child Care in Schools Advisory Committee as anon-legislated advisory committee, within the procedure adopted by theBoard for the organization and operation of such committees;

(b) That the Child Care in Schools Advisory Committee provide a forum forinformation sharing and advice to the Board on policy and related mattersconcerning child care in schools;

(c) That the Director of Education report to the Board concerning themembership of the Child Care in Schools Advisory Committee.



The mandate of the committee is:

(a) To provide a forum for information sharing on the Toronto District School Board’spolicy and related matters concerning child care in schools.

(b) To provide advice and respond to the Toronto District School Board on policy andBoard initiatives related to child care in schools.

The structure of the committee was designed to be comprised of a wide representationfrom school-based child care centres, as well as other stakeholders within the TorontoDistrict School Board.

Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Basra, moved That the Board appoint arepresentative to serve on the Child Care in Schools Advisory Committee.


It was decided to appoint Trustee Codd as the Board’s representative on the Child Care inSchools Advisory Committee.

31. Functions of School Community Advisors (referred to committee)

The Board considered a report of the officials recommending core functions for schoolcommunity advisors, which reflect the current priorities of the system with regard toparent and community involvement.

Trustee Rutledge, seconded by Trustee Harrison, moved: That the report be referredto the Program and School Services Committee for consideration and report to theBoard.

The motion to refer was carried.

32. Reports to Committees

Trustee Cary-Meagher, seconded by Trustee Fletcher, moved: That, in future, staffreports concerning matters presented at Information Sessions be forwarded to theappropriate standing committee of the Board.




33. TDSB Response to the Minister of Education’s Advisory Group On theProvision of Co-instructional Activities (see page 49)

The Board considered a report from the officials presenting a proposed submission to theMinister of Education’s Advisory Group on the Provision of Co-instructional Activities.

The Ministry’s advisory group recently extended an invitation to interested individualsand organizations across the province to submit proposals on the issue of providing co-instructional activities.

A task force was formed consisting of students, parents, trustees, student trustees,teachers, principals, district-wide coordinators and supervisory officers to prepare theattached submission (see page 49).

Trustee Wynne, seconded by Trustee Cansfield, moved: That the report be approvedfor submission to the Minister of Education’s Advisory Board on the Provision ofCo-instructional Activities.


34. Report No. 4, Committee of the Whole (Private Session), January 31,2001 (see page 54)

Trustee Cansfield, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved: That Report No. 4, Committeeof the Whole (Private Session), January 31, 2001, be adopted.


35. Deferral of Agenda Items

Earlier in the meeting, Trustee Ward, seconded by Trustee Ling, moved: That a SpecialBoard Meeting be held on February 7, 2001, to consider matters not considered atthis meeting;


The following matters were deferred to the Special Board meeting on February 7, 2001:

Committee Reports

• Report No. 1, Budget Committee, January 23, 2001• Report No. 1, Business and Facilities Committee, January 24, 2001 (Items 3, 4, 5 and

6)• Report No. 1, Human Resources and Staff Development Committee, January 18,

2001• Report No. 1, Program and School Services Committee, January 15, 2001• Report No. 1, Trustees’ Communications Committee, January 24, 2001• Report No. 1, Ad Hoc Committee on Governance, January 10, 2001• Report No. 1, House Committee, January 23, 2001



• Report No. 10, Special Education Advisory Committee, December 18, 2000• Report No. 1, Special Education Advisory Committee, January 12, 2001• Report No. 1, Playground Learning Environment Steering Committee, January 31,

2001

Consideration of Notices of Motions

• Motion by Trustee Rutledge on a Members Code of conduct at Meetings and Usageof the Trustees’ Lounge and Main Committee Room during Board Meetings.

• Motion by Trustee Cansfield on the Membership of the Negotiations SteeringCommittee.

• Motion by Trustee Wynne on Electronic Meetings• Motion by Trustee Davis on Optional French Programs

36. Adjournment

At 11:00 p.m., on a motion by Trustee Cansfield, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, theRegular Board Meeting adjourned.


Minutes of the Toronto District School Board January 31, 2001Business and Facilities Committee, Report No. 1


Report No. 1,Business and Facilities Committee (Public Session)

January 24, 2001


A meeting of the Business and Facilities Committee convened at 6:45 p.m. on Wednesday,January 24, 2001, in the Main Committee Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, withSheila Ward, Chair of the Committee, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Sheila Ward (Chair), Paula Fletcher, PaulineLing, Nellie Pedro, Patrick Rutledge.

The following trustees were also present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield, SheilaCary-Meagher, Elizabeth Hill and Kathleen Wynne.

The Committee decided to report as follows:


Trustee Davis declared a conflict of interest with respect to a private property matter. TrusteeDavis was not present during the discussion or voting on this matter.

38. Terms of Reference for the Committee

The Committee considered a report of the officials presenting terms of reference.

The Business and Facilities Committee RECOMMENDS that it:

(a) meet at least once a month in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates approved bythe Board;

(b) make recommendations concerning all aspects of business and facilities matters (exceptbudget and finance) to the Toronto District School Board.

(c) co-operate in determining appropriate communication strategies regarding business andfacilities matters.

39. Ursula Franklin Academy Relocation

This matter was considered by the Board at its meeting of February 7, 2001.

40. Locating a Regional Education Office in Western Technical and CommercialSchool




41. Renovation Costs of School Closures, Phase One


42. Bruce Public School and Bathurst Heights Secondary School Remaining Open


43. Expanded Heather Heights Area Review School: Changes to SchoolAttendance Areas Resulting From School Closures, Phase Two (as amended bythe Board, see page 19)

The Business and Facilities Committee considered a report of the officials presenting staffrecommendations for changes to school attendance areas as required to implement theaccommodation model of schools within the expanded Heather Heights Review Area.

At its regular meeting held on October 4, 2000, the Board adopted several recommendationsfrom a report “Closure, Relocation, Consolidation Implementation Teams: Phase Two.” Thisreport included details regarding the mandate and membership of the various types ofImplementation Teams and outlined the process and critical path required to complete PhaseTwo of school closures.

In Phase Two, there were two school closures, two school consolidations, two programrelocations and one area boundary optimization. This report deals with the boundaryoptimization of schools within the expanded Heather Heights Review Area.

Recommendation (c) of the report “Closure, Relocation, Consolidation Implementation Teams:Phase Two” requires “that the revised school boundaries be brought to the Board for approval.”Moreover, the Education Act requires that designated school attendance areas (new or revised)be approved by the Board.

As a result of extending the Heather Heights Area Review Committee process, the final report“Staff Response to the Report of the Expanded Heather Heights Area Review Committee” wasnot adopted by the Board until October 25, 2000. The Implementation Team for this expandedreview area did not commence until November 2000, thus this report was delayed in order toprovide due process to the Boundary Optimization Implementation Team’s deliberations.

Process

Once organized, the Boundary Optimization Implementation Team (BOIT) appointed a workgroup to develop appropriate strategies and solutions to deal with the various issues facing thosecommunities affected by boundary optimization. In respect of the school attendance area issue,the work group was guided by the following principles:

• Walking Distances: Walking distances for students displaced by a boundary adjustmentshould be minimized and should not exceed the distances established by the Board’sapproved Transportation of Students Policy.



• Safety: The conditions that students experience in travelling to a new school should notinvolve undue hardship or unacceptable levels of risk. The location of crossing guards andsignalized intersections should be identified when safety scenarios are considered. Policerecords of motor vehicle accidents involving pedestrians during school hours should bereviewed. This principle applies more to elementary attendance area changes than tosecondary attendance area changes.

• Program Space: Balance student enrolments at all area schools to levels that would achievethe optimal 80% utilization rate of each facility.

Results

In dealing with the school attendance area issue, the Heather Heights BOIT held three meetings.Further consultation occurred through forums such as parent meetings and public meetings. Afterreceiving input from these forums, the full BOIT membership recommended its preferredoptions.

The BOIT was successful in recommending revised attendance boundaries and changes to theschool organizations to successfully move towards the optimal 80% utilization of all schools inthe review area. Staff concurs with these recommendations.

Summarized below are the recommendations of the Heather Heights BOIT and correspondingstaff comments.

(a) George B. Little Junior, Henry Hudson Senior and Tecumseh Senior Public Schools

Implementing the conversion of George B. Little Jr PS from a Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6program to a Junior Kindergarten to Grade 8 program results in the reduction of the attendanceareas of Henry Hudson and Tecumseh Senior Public Schools. The BOIT reviewed severalscenarios, all of which would, in some manner, reduce a portion of the Willow Park JuniorPublic School attendance area currently designated to Tecumseh.

The chosen scenario, which was the unanimous choice of the BOIT at its December 18, 2000,meeting, is illustrated on Map 1. This scenario was selected because it allows students currentlyattending George B. Little for Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6 to continue at the school forGrades 7 and 8, provides relief for Tecumseh’s current and long-range overcrowding andbalances the utilization rates of these schools.

(b) Heather Heights and Woburn Junior Public Schools

Heather Heights Junior Public School is to receive a minimum of 175 students (FTE) from theWoburn Junior Public School attendance area with transportation provided according to theBoard’s Policy E.01: Transportation of Students. The BOIT reviewed five scenarios, four ofwhich assigned a portion of the Woburn attendance area to Heather Heights and one thatchanged the school organization of Woburn from Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6 to offeringJunior Kindergarten to Grade 4 with the Grade 5 and 6 students attending Heather Heights. Thislater scenario was supported by the majority of parents at a meeting held at Woburn Jr PS onDecember 9, 2000.



The BOIT, at its December 18, 2000, meeting, voted 11 to 4 in favour of recommending thatGrade 5 and 6 students from Woburn be bused to Heather Heights. This scenario was selectedbecause it is overwhelmingly supported by the Woburn community, provides relief for Woburn’scurrent and long-range overcrowding and balances the utilization rates of these schools.

The full report of the Heather Heights BOIT will be kept in the Office of the Secretariat of theBoard for a limited time.

Staff Comment: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Heather Heights BOIT that,effective June 30, 2001, the attendance boundaries of George B. Little, Henry Hudson andTecumseh be revised as shown on Map 1 and that the Grade 5 and 6 students from the Woburnattendance area be accommodated at Heather Heights with transportation provided according tothe Board’s Policy E.01: Transportation of Students. It is understood, that the conversion ofGeorge B. Little from a JK to Grade 6 to a JK to Grade 8 school will be phased over two yearswith Grade 7 being offered starting September 2001 and Grade 8 in September 2002. This willallow Grade 7 students currently attending both Henry Hudson and Tecumseh to remain at theseschools to complete their intermediate program. Although staff’s original proposal was torelocate approximately 175 (FTE) Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6 students from Woburn toHeather Heights, staff supports the BOIT’s recommendation to relocate the Grade 5 and 6programs at Woburn to Heather Heights. Staff, at this time, cannot support the statement “thatGrade 5 and 6 students from Woburn Jr PS be bused to Heather Heights Jr PS” as this must bereviewed by the Transportation Department.

The following table provides enrolment and capacity data and shows the effect of therecommended attendance area changes on George B. Little, Heather Heights, Henry Hudson,Tecumseh and Woburn regarding respective enrolments and utilization rates.

Attendance Boundary Data: Heather Heights BOIT

Actual SeptemberEnrolment

Revised Enrolment(based on proposed boundary

change)

SchoolName

100%Min of EdCapacity

2000FullTimeEquivalent

2000UtilizationRate%

2000FullTimeEquivalent

2000UtilizationRate%

George B. Little Jr PS 614.5 362.5 59% 511.5 83%

Heather Heights Jr PS 525.0 231.5 44% 381.5 73%

Henry Hudson Sr PS

Tecumseh Sr PS

575.0

278.5

427.0

312.0

74%

112%

348.0

242.0

61%

87%

Woburn Jr PS 522.5 592.5 113% 442.5 85%



The decision of the Board (see page 19) is as follows:

(a) That George B. Little Junior Public School begin the conversion to a Junior Kindergartento Grade 8 Public School by offering Grade 7 in September 2001 and offering Grade 8 inSeptember 2002;

(b) That effective June 30, 2001, the attendance boundaries of George B. Little Junior PublicSchool, Henry Hudson Senior Public School and Tecumseh Senior Public School berevised as shown on Map 1 of this report;

(c) (i) That effective June 30, 2001, the Grades 5 and 6 students from the Woburn JuniorPublic School attendance area be accommodated at Heather Heights Junior PublicSchool with transportation provided according to the Board’s Policy E.01:Transportation of Students;

(ii) That notwithstanding the above and the Board’s transportation policy, bustransportation be provided for the Grade 6 students at Woburn Junior Public Schooland that this matter be reviewed in a year’s time;

(iii) That staff work with the community to address safety concerns.

(d) That effective June 30, 2001, the name George B. Little Junior Public School be changedto George B. Little Public School.

44. Purchasing Policy and Collaborative Ventures (as amended by the Board, seepage 20)

The Business and Facilities Committee considered a report of the officials providing a review ofthe current purchasing policy and administrative procedures and recommending a revised policyand related administrative procedures (see page 56) with a focus on the following principles:

• Policies and procedures which are in line with other public organizations• Reduced supply base and longer term contracts• Streamlined purchasing process• Increased efficiency and economy• Best utilization of reduced administrative staff resources• Increased collaboration with other public organizations• High accountability and reporting standards

These principles are complementary with each other and are not in any order of priority. Theoverall goal is to increase efficiency and divert more resources to the classroom withoutcompromising reporting and accountability standards.

In August 2000, a year after the SAP financial system implementation, staff initiated a review todetermine the effectiveness and efficiency of the of the purchasing policy, approval thresholdsand related administrative procedures in light of the new financial system, reduced staffing levelsand increased workload.

A brief outline of the background that led to the current purchasing policy follows.



In May 1996, seven of the eight legacy Boards established the Purchasing and Warehousing Co-operative (Co-op) and adopted the following accountability structure. The General Manager ofthe Co-op reported to a Management Committee and a Board of Directors which was comprisedof senior staff and Trustees from each member legacy Board respectively.

The establishment of the Co-op resulted in significant staff reductions (from about 200 to 80)and produced considerable savings for all member Boards. In recognition of thisaccomplishment, in 1998, the Board was awarded the Ontario Local Government InnovativePublic Service Delivery Award.

Along with adopting a common purchasing policy, the legacy Boards, through the Board ofDirectors, established the following authority levels for contracts awarded by the Co-op:

• General Manager – up to $1 million;• Management Committee – over $1 million and up to $5 million;• Board of Directors – over $5 million.

Following amalgamation, in September 1998, the Toronto District School Board adopted thecurrent purchasing policy, which is as follows:

Purchasing activities shall be carried out and orders awarded in accordance with Boardpolicy and administrative procedures.

The Purchasing and Distribution Services Department shall be responsible for thepurchase and supply of all materials, equipment and services required by the Board,except land purchases, insurance, employee fringe benefit contracts and miscellaneouspetty cash and purchase card purchases.

The Purchasing and Distribution Services Department shall make no purchase on behalfof employees or Members of the Board.

All contracts over $500,000 must be approved by the Board prior to the award.

The Board also approved the change of the name of the former Purchasing and Warehousing Co-operative to Purchasing and Distribution Services Department (PDS) to better reflect its placewithin the amalgamated Board’s administrative structure.

In preparing this report, staff have reviewed the efficiency and effectiveness of the existingpolicy and administrative practices, e-commerce and other collaborative opportunities andpropose changes that will create efficiencies and economies for the Board.

In addition, the policies of the Toronto Catholic School Board, the surrounding Greater TorontoArea school districts, the City of Toronto and the province of Ontario were examined. Themajority of the Greater Toronto Area district school boards do not require any approval for theaward of contracts as long as funds are available in the approved budget. Current Thresholdsand Approval Process: The attached summary (see page 58) outlines other school organizations’approval processes and the thresholds of various public organizations.



Administrative Procedures

In the 1999-2000 school year, the Purchasing and Distribution Services Department issued over400 contracts and over 45,000 purchase orders totaling approximately $120 million in support ofschool, administrative department and Facility Services needs. This is over three times theactivity experienced by the Purchasing and Warehousing Co-operative prior to amalgamation.

The increased activity was a result of the amalgamation and the centralization of all purchases,including the needs for Facility Services, through PDS. This drastic increase in purchasingactivity coincided with the reduction of administrative support staff that saw PDS staffing levelsdecrease from approximately 80 staff in 1997 to 54 in September 2000. Further staff reductionswill be necessary in the 2001 and 2002 fiscal year in order to achieve the administrative stafflevels supported by the provincial funding formula.

The implementation of the new SAP financial system has helped the significantly reduced staffto cope with the increased volume of work. However, additional efficiencies and economies canbe achieved through the expanded use of technology and e-commerce opportunities. Also,changes in administrative procedures are required to enable increased efficiency.

This report proposes a number of policy and administrative procedure changes that will assistPDS to achieve the principles outlined in this report.

Tendering and Approval and Reporting Process

Current

• Posting – All requirements for products and/or services exceeding a value of $100,000 areprocessed and posted on an electronic bulletin board in order to abide with inter-provincialtrade agreements.

• Term of Contracts – Most contracts are for a one (1) year term with up to two (2) one-yearoptional extensions at the discretion of the Board.

• Approvals – The Senior Manager of PDS has the authority to approve awards up to$100,000. Awards over $100,000 and up to $500,000 may be approved by the Directorand/or an Executive Officer or designate. All awards over $500,000 must be approved by theBoard. Taxes are excluded from these amounts.

• Reporting – recommendations for awards over $500,000, exclusive of taxes, require a reportto the Board through the Executive Council and the Standing Committee of the Board.

• Cumulative Awards – Tenders resulting in multiple awards which are individually under$500,000 but cumulative over $500,000 require Board approval. For example, one tender forclassroom supplies may be awarded to 4 bidders and while each of the contracts is under$500,000, the combined value of the four contracts is over $500,000 and therefore, under thecurrent policy, Board approval is required.

• Summer Approvals – No contracts over $500,000 can be approved during months when thereare no scheduled Board meetings.



Proposed

• Posting – No change is proposed in this process. The existing process meets and exceeds theinter-provincial trade agreement requirements and suppliers are well aware of this process.There is no cost to the Board for these postings.

• Term of Contracts – Given the staff reductions to date and the additional staff reductions thatare anticipated, it is proposed that the term of contracts be between 3 and 5 years, dependingon the commodity, with up to two (2) additional one year optional extensions. All contractswill include termination clauses and the optional extensions will be exercised after a reviewof the vendors’ performance and market conditions.

• Approvals – It is proposed that: the Senior Manager of PDS be given the authority to approveall contracts up to $500,000 exclusive of taxes. Contracts over $500,000 and up to $2million be approved by the Director and/or an Executive Officer. All contract awards over$2 million and under $5 million to be approved by the Facilities and Business Committee andreported to the Board. The Board must approve all contracts in excess of $5 million. Theproposed increased levels of authority are commensurate with the proposed increases in theterm of the contracts and are in line with other public institutions.

• Reporting – The Director will prepare reports for all contracts over $2 million for theBusiness and Facilities Committee and/or Board approval(s) as required.

• In addition, it is proposed that a quarterly report will be presented to the Business andFacilities Committee outlining all contracts over $500,000.

• Cumulative Awards – Contract award authority will be based on the individual contract andnot the cumulative value of all contracts that may result from one single tender call.

• Summer Approvals – The Director in consultation with the Chair of the Board may approvecontract awards over $2 million during the summer months and report such awards to thenext scheduled Business and Facilities Committee or Board meeting as required.

E-Commerce and Supplier Partnerships

Similar to many other large organizations, the Board will need to look at ways of improving itssupply management process.

Fewer and longer-term contracts are key to reducing overall costs and creating a continuousimprovement process between the Board and its major suppliers.

The implementation of the SAP financial system has provided staff with a very powerful tool tomanage its financial and procurement needs. It also holds the potential of being a springboard tothe expanding Business to Business (B2B) and Business to Customer (B2C) area for the Board.

The next release of the SAP system will allow the Board web access directly into suppliers’electronic catalogues. In addition to providing easy access for customers, the web-based systemwill provide increased opportunities for the expansion of electronic invoicing and electronic fundtransfer thus creating additional efficiencies for the Board.



The Board will need to establish partnerships with suppliers that are at a technological positionto leverage the technology. Interfacing with Board-supplier system will need to be increased andbe an essential prerequisite for doing business with the Board.

Currently most contracts are for short terms, usually one year, with optional extensions at thediscretion of the Board. This does not promote an environment where suppliers are willing tospend effort and resources to enhance technological interfacing with the Board. Longer termcontracts will provide an impetus for major suppliers to invest in such relationships with theBoard.

This report proposes that the Board, where appropriate, enter into longer term contracts withmajor suppliers. Depending on the product or service, 3-5 year terms with up to two one-yearextension options, at the discretion of the Board, are recommended.

Procurement Process and Staffing Implications

System Contract Establishment and Management Process (see page 59) outlines the typicalprocurement steps taken to implement and manage system wide contracts. Purchasing andDistribution Services staff make every effort to include the customers in the development of allcontracts. While this is a time consuming process, staff strongly feel that it is necessary in orderto ensure that the products or services purchased meet the needs of the users.

Depending on the commodity and complexity of the requirements, the process of identificationof the need to Board approval for a contract award, for one contract, may take from a low of 3months to over a year. An example of the former is a tender for fine copy papers. An exampleof the latter is a tender for service type contracts where extensive evaluation may be requiredsuch as a new document management system, duplicating equipment, new telephony system, etc.

The time required to complete the systems contract process is also dependent on the partiesinvolved in the development of specifications and the evaluation of tenders. Some tenders wherethe specifications are clearly defined and simple may not require the extensive involvement of acustomer (user) committee. Others require extensive planning and consensus building todevelop acceptable standards and specifications for all users.

The process may take even longer in areas where collaboration with other public organizations issought. An example of this is the joint tender for Student Transportation between the TorontoDistrict School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board where it took over a yearof preparatory work before the tender was issued on behalf of both Boards. This joint ventureresulted in annual savings of about 5% from the previous contract but it took over a year andsignificant staff effort to put in place.

System Contract Establishment and Management Process clearly indicates that the procurementprocess does not end with the contract award. Contract management after the award, is criticalduring the term of the contract. A well-managed contract provides a win-win situation for bothparties and evolves to meet the changing needs of the customers during the life of the contract.

Staff also wishes to continue and, where possible, expand collaboration with other publicinstitutions and the use of the customer committee approach in developing system-wide



contracts. The current and anticipated staff reductions require that we look at different ways ofachieving these goals without losing sight of the need to be accountable.

Under existing policy and procedures, it takes a team of staff, working together, anywhere fromthree (3) months (for a simple requirement) to over one (1) year (for complex requirements) tocomplete the tendering process and present a recommendation for Board approval. This is inconcert with a requirement that staff must advise up to six months in advance if any tender is tobe included in a Board agenda. Unexpected factors that may arise during the tendering processmay impact the projected timelines significantly and result in the delay of awarding contracts anddelay the implementation of any related projects. A recent example is the approval of the awardfor Storage Area Network. While the recommendation was ready in October 2000, it wasincluded in the agenda of the December 2000 Board meeting. However, the item was deferred tothe January 2001 round of Board meetings as the Board was unable to deal with all the agendaitems. This delay will have significant implementation implications. In addition, most vendorswill only hold their price quotes for a finite period of usually 90 days pending the awarding ofthe contract.

Staff currently repeat this time consuming process on an annual basis for multiple tenders.Given the current staffing pressures and the further anticipated reduction of staff resources, Itwill be impossible to function effectively and efficiently unless we vigorously pursue and adoptmore efficient purchasing and award approval practices.

The proposed changes to the purchasing policy and the administrative procedures will enable thereduced resources of Purchasing and Distribution Services to function effectively and efficientlywithout compromising consultation with the user community, accountability and reportingrequirements.

Collaborative Purchasing: An EIC Perspective

On October 26, 2000, the Education Improvement Commission (EIC) released its report onCollaboration Among School Boards. A number of types of collaborative projects werehighlighted including the Purchasing and Distribution Services Department of the TorontoDistrict School Board (formerly Purchasing and Warehousing Co-operative). The EIC made anumber of specific recommendations as outlined in Education Improvement Commission:Collaboration Among School Boards, Recommendations (see page 58) of this report.

The EIC Recommendations No. 1 A and B, are specific to School Boards and one that staff ofthis Board are prepared to implement fully with the support of senior management and Trustees.This is reflected in the proposed changes to the Purchasing Policy in the Collaborative Servicesand Accountability sections.

The EIC Recommendations No. 2 to 6 recommend field-testing of different types ofcollaborative projects in a regional setting. These recommendations are currently underconsideration by the Ministry of Education and Training.

The work done by staff of this Board in setting up the Purchasing and Warehousing Co-operativefor seven of the eight legacy Boards, provide a unique opportunity for this Board to take aleadership role in the regional pilot projects recommended in the EIC report.



The recommendation contained in the report of the officials was:

(a) That the purchasing policy and related administrative procedures (see page xCCxx)be approved;

(b) That the Ministry of Education be advised of the Board’s interest in participating ina regional collaborative project that will assist in the evaluation of the benefitsavailable through shared services initiatives.

Decision of the Board (see page 20)

The decision of the Board is as follows:

Whereas, the Toronto District School Board must maintain the highest levels of financialaccountability; and

Whereas, the Toronto District School Board must scrutinize spending to ensure that itslimited resources are spent where they are needed most; and

Whereas, the trustees of the Toronto District School Board have established a system ofcommittees to oversee Board policies and activities; and

Whereas, closer scrutiny of the Board’s purchases of goods and services will give trusteesa better idea of where the Board is spending money; and

Whereas, the Toronto District School Board has approved Policy E.03; Purchasing thatestablishes the approval threshold for TDSB procurement (see attached); and

Therefore, be it resolved:

(a) That the levels of approval in the Board’s policy E.03: Purchasing, be amended asfollows:

Amount of contract Level of staffapproval

Level of Boardapproval Comments

Up to $50,000

Manager,Purchasing andDistributionServices

None

$50,001 to$250,000

Executive Officer,or designate

Staffrecommendationscrutinized byappropriate Boardcommittee

Forwarded to Boardfor informationonly, unlesschallenged inwriting

Over $250,000 Staffrecommendationscrutinized by

Forwarded to theBoard en masse forapproval unless



appropriate Boardcommittee and theBoard

items are held

(b) That TDSB Policy E.03: Purchasing, be reviewed by the Board in six (6) months;

(c) That a reporting mechanism be developed by purchasing staff in consultation with theChair of the Board, the Director of Education, the Chair of the Business and FacilitiesCommittee and Trustee Davis to facilitate the timely and relevant distribution ofpurchasing information to the Business and Facilities Committee and the Board, asappropriate.

45. Request for Proposal: Storage Area Network (as amended by the Board, seepage 20)

The Business and Facilities Committee considered a report of the officials recommendingawarding a contract to Dell Computer Corporation as the vendor of record for storage andbackup subsystems for a period of three years, with an initial purchase of five terabytes ofstorage for approx. $1,070,000.

The ability for the students and teachers to save, share and access their respective work they dowith the computers is varied across the Board--from non-existent to limited. To address thisissue, in May 2000, the Information Technology Advisory Committee approved a project to seeka solution to the following objectives:

(a) Provide students and teachers with their own storage space that will be backed up,monitored for viruses, and secured;

(b) Provide unique user ids and link the storage to the ids to maintain continuity of portfolioand accountability;

(c) Provide transparent mobility for students and teachers within the school and across thesystem;

(d) Provide an enabling infrastructure for future access by parents to their child’s e-portfolio;

(e) Provide a structure and space for teachers and students to exchange e-assignment and e-work.

As a result, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued to vendors July 10, 2000. The intent of theRFP was to facilitate the selection of a vendor who would:

(a) Supply an initial five terabytes of high availability, high performance and cost-effectivestorage and backup subsystems;

(b) Implement the subsystems to meet Board’s requirements;



(c) Act as the vendor of record for any additional storage and backup requirements that mayarise over the next three years.

The RFP closed on August 10, 2000, and proposals were received from the following sixbidders:

Amdahl, Tivoli Backup, IBM Magstar Tape LibraryCompaq, Veritas Backup, Compaq Tape LibraryDell/Veritas or Legato Backup/Dell Tape Storage or Storage Tek Tape LibraryHitachi, Veritas Backup, StorageTek Tape LibraryIBM, Tivoli Backup, IBM Linear Tape Open (LTO) LibraryXiotech, Legato Backup, Sony Petasite Tape Library

Staff from the Information Technology and Purchasing and Distribution Services reviewed allproposals. Amdahl, Hitachi, and IBM were eliminated from contention based on price. Thefollowing three bidders were invited to make presentations to the evaluating committee:

CompaqDellXiotech

The proposals submitted by these three bidders best met the Board’s present and future needs.Following the presentations, the evaluating committee decided to proceed with further evaluationof the proposals submitted by Compaq, Dell, and Xiotech. Further analysis of the pricingeliminated Xiotech from contention.

The evaluation committee members also visited the facilities of the two finalists and weresatisfied with both of the proposed solutions.

The two finalists’ proposed solutions met the requirements of the Board and the selection wasprimarily based on the storage pricing.

A detailed summary of all evaluations is available in the Purchasing and Distribution ServicesDepartment.



Options and Implications

Three options were considered for this proposal and their respective merits are outlined below:

(a) Status quo

Under this scenario schools would continue to acquire the required storage on their own to meettheir respective needs and similarly independent acquisitions will be made for the administrativesystems to meet their respective needs.

Advantages: On the surface this option presents the least change to any of the existing practices.

Disadvantages: Due to amalgamation of various systems, the infrastructure was temporarilyinterfaced to address several immediate needs. If the infrastructure is not rationalized, thestability will begin to decline due to increased usage. This process will be highly inefficient andincreases the risk of integration of new acquisitions due to the diversity of the legacyenvironments.

(b) Distributed school-based storage

Under this scenario storage will be acquired and set up locally at the schools with thecorresponding servers.

Advantages: On the surface the Wide Area Network dependence is reduced.

Disadvantages: Leveraging of the current efforts to build the reliable high speed network todeliver services like Internet will be lost. Also, this would mean that the Board will have todevelop a corresponding support structure at each school and develop a process to migrate thedata as students and staff relocate from school to school. In addition, the backup and recoveryinfrastructure must be replicated for schools to ensure ability to restore lost data.

(c) Central Storage Area Network

Under this scenario centralized storage will be delivered to schools and administrative systemsusing the network as outlined in this recommendation.

Key Financial Implications

Several initiatives that are underway are predicated on availability of central storage and thecorresponding costs were developed based on this strategy. These initiatives are:

(ii) Innovative schools project that includes Parkdale and Joyce Public Schools.

(iii) Continuation of Phase II of the Applicant Tracking System.(iv) Continuation of Facilities Services Information System.(v) Rationalization of Exchange mail system.



Impact on Student Learning

For approximately 20 cents per megabyte (MB), students and teachers will be provided withstorage and backup that will result in:

(i) Equitable access for all students and staff across the Board(ii) Universal access to their respective e-portfolio(iii) Efficient utilization of storage(iv) Lower support cost through consolidation(v) Just in time capacity booking and efficient management of capacity(vi) Economies of scale in system management and backup(vii) Increased availability for lowest marginal cost

Homework, assignments, and resource materials can be electronically distributed in a mannerthat will help students and teachers. Further, this initiative along with the others that are beingplanned would facilitate the way the parent/guardian reviews their respective child’s electronicportfolio.

Course Of Action

It is suggested that the Toronto District School Board award the contract to Dell ComputerCorporation, as the vendor of record, with an initial purchase of five terabytes of storage andassociated backup systems for approximately $1,070,000 plus applicable taxes. This costincludes a three-year warranty and technical support.

The successful bidder was chosen as a result of the following:

(a) Relative overall comparison based on raw costing as presented in the Proposal

(b) Relative costing for equivalent capabilities based on all proposals(c) To bring into conformity with a standard costing for five terabyte storage(d) The backup alternative included in the Dell proposal is more extendable and future proofed

through the support of the LTO architecture, which will provide increased backup tapecapacity.

Implementation Strategy

The project will be staged over a five-month period. No additional Board resources will berequired as the vendor will be providing a dedicated implementation team overseen by theBoard’s Implementation Project Manager.

To ensure an efficient and timely system installation, the vendor will begin preparationimmediately after being awarded the contract. The project will be staffed with experiencedspecialists in all phases of the system installation. They will monitor the progress of eachinstallation using project flow charts and critical path documents to ensure a smooth, accurateand effective system implementation. The 2000–01 Information Technology current operatingbudget has allocated funds for this priority purchase.



Additional storage capacity will be acquired as needed over the next three years and will besubject to the prior approval of the Information Technology Advisory Committee.

Communication Strategy

As the implementation commences, a rollout schedule will be developed in consultation withAcademic and Client Services. The critical path for the storage rollout process will becommunicated to school staffs. The rollout team will perform site reviews, addressing individualschool needs.

Each school will be advised well in advance of their scheduled rollout. Scheduling andinstallation checks will be used to monitor the process to ensure that the project is kept on track.

Decision of the Board (see page 20)

The decision of the Board is as follows:

(a) That Dell Computer Corporation be approved as the vendor of record for storage andassociated backup systems and warranty for a three-year period, with an initial purchase offive terabytes of storage, associated backup systems and warranty valued at approximately$1,070,000;

(b) That the implementation and communication strategy be approved, in principle;

(c) That pending the outcome of the Program and School Services Committee’s review of theInformation and Technology policy and its impact on curriculum, that the Information andTechnology department establish a protocol to minimize the storage requirements ofsystem users.

(d) That an independent consulting report on the state of the TDSB’s computer systems andprocedures be commissioned and prepared for consideration by the Audit Committee andthe Business and Facilities Committee by March 31, 2001.

46. Technology and the Curriculum

At the request of Trustee Wynne, the Committee considered this matter arising out of discussionof the RFP for the Storage Area Network.

The Business and Facilities Committee RECOMMENDS that the Program and School ServicesCommittee be requested to review the policy of the Information Technology department and itsreflection and impact on curriculum.

47. Community Use of School Parking Lots

At the request of Trustee Cary-Meagher, the Committee considered the matter of the communityuse of school parking lots.

The Business and Facilities Committee RECOMMENDS that the Director report to theBusiness and Facilities Committee, February 22, 2001, on the Board’s policy for community useof school parking lots.



48. Accommodation Framework Committee and Air Rights Agreements

At the request of Trustee Cary-Meagher, the Committee considered the matter of theAccommodation Framework Committee and air rights agreements.

The Business and Facilities Committee RECOMMENDS that the Director report to theBusiness and Facilities Committee, February 22, 2001, providing:

(a) an update on the work of the Accommodation Framework Committee, including when thenext meeting is scheduled and the target date for a final report to the Board;

(b) a report providing information on whether the Board or any of its parts or persons has anyair rights agreements with any person, corporation or company, and if so, with whom andfor which buildings, and if not, what or which of the buildings would qualify for that kindof agreement; and which, if any, of the predecessor boards had such agreements.

49. Board-owned and Leased Properties

At the request of Trustee Cary-Meagher, the Committee considered the matter of Board-ownedand leased properties.

The Business and Facilities Committee RECOMMENDS that the Director present a report tothe Business and Facilities Committee, February 22, 2001, providing a list of properties that areowned by the Board or leased out by the Board; and a report to the Committee in Marchproviding a list of properties that are leased by the Board for its use.

50. Notice of Motion by Trustee Fletcher re Open-concept Schools and SquareFootage Anomalies

For the information of the Board, Trustee Fletcher presented the following notice of motion forconsideration at a future meeting of the Business and Facilities Committee.

That the Director prepare a report for the Board providing information on thenumber of open-concept schools in the Toronto District School Board and adescription of the square footage anomalies as they relate to capacity.

51. Notice of Motion by Trustee Fletcher re Energy Savings

For the information of the Board, Trustee Fletcher presented the following notice of motion forconsideration at a future meeting of the Business and Facilities Committee.

Whereas the Board’s energy costs are continually rising; and

Whereas not all buildings have been retrofitted for energy savings; and

Whereas the Better Buildings Partnership at the City of Toronto is designed toassist in realizing savings in energy costs (HVAC);



Therefore, be it resolved, that the Board explore the opportunities offered throughthe Better Buildings Partnership for realizing savings in all of its buildings thathave not already been retrofitted.

52. Deferral of Agenda Items

The following agenda items were not considered by the Committee and will therefore beincluded on the agenda of the next meeting.

(a) School-based Fundraising Policy(b) Declaration of Surplus School Properties(c) Snow Removal(d) Caretaking and Security at 155 College Street(e) Permit Fees(f) Consideration of Motion by Trustee Ward re Permit Fees for Sir William Osler High

School and Timothy Eaton Business and Technical Institute.

53. Private Session

The Business and Facilities Committee met in private to consider matters that were reported tothe Committee of the Whole (Private Session).


Sheila WardChair of the Committee

Adopted, as amended, January 31, 2001

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board January 31, 2001Report re Provision of Co-instructional Activities


Submission to the Minister of Education’s Advisory Group onthe Provision of Co-instructional Activities

(Adopted by the Board, see page 29)

The TDSB welcomes the opportunity to have input into such an important issue, so critical to theeducation of children in the City of Toronto and the province.

This submission, approved by the Board, was prepared by a task force representing: students,parents, trustees, student trustees, teachers, principals, subject coordinators and supervisoryofficers. This submission presents the thoughts and recommendations that reflect the strongconsensus reached by this group.

Co-instructional Activities in the TDSB, Past and Present

Our Past

Every school in the Toronto District School Board has a unique and rich history of co-instructional programs. Taken altogether over many decades, these programs have enhanced theeducational experiences of hundreds of thousands of students. We are very proud of thistradition.

For over a century, Toronto’s teachers, with the support and involvement of other school staff,parents and community members have contributed their time and expertise after school toprovide young people with opportunities to:

• Develop leadership skills• Perform in school productions• Compete in athletics• Participate in clubs and other groups• Help fellow students• Support the communities in which they live

These experiences have provided countless benefits to all involved.

Among many other things, young people have learned:

• Social skills• The value of coordinated group action• Self-awareness• Skills with life long application• Leadership and organizational skills• Knowledge of and comfort with working in a diverse society



Through their involvement teachers have benefited in ways such as the following:

• Emotional benefits arising from closer ties with students and community• Self-satisfaction arising from working with both highly motivated and at-risk students• The development of new leadership and organizational skills.

Schools, communities and society as a whole have benefited in a variety of ways:

• School spirit and culture are enhanced• A sense of unity is created in the community with the school as a focus• Students and communities learn how to work in and contribute to a very diverse society• Students experienced a greater sense of belonging that was reflected in a more positive

attitude to school• A 1997 study in TIME magazine illustrated clearly that the number one characteristic of a

quality school was the perceived high quality of its co-instructional programs

Studies of individual schools show that in most instances virtually every member of staffcontributed to providing students with co-instructional activities. In the past, teachers supportedone another: staff cultures, procedures, practices, and time resources facilitated this mutualsupport.

Teachers always brought enthusiasm, commitment and willingness to co-instructional activities.However, in many areas this has been compromised by the current climate in the province.Recently, workload issues and attacks on education have adversely affected teacher morale andenthusiasm.

The Present

Surveys by the Ontario Principals’ Council, the Ontario Federation of School AthleticAssociations and others show that secondary teacher involvement in co-instructional activities isdown this year to a small fraction of what it was in 1999-2000. In one Toronto secondaryschool, 109 activities were offered last year – this year, so far, only ten have operated.

The following further describes the current situation as it exists within Toronto:

• Toronto is a diverse city. Reduced co-instructional opportunities adversely affect thechildren from some segments of our society more than others.

• There is no community infrastructure of sufficient magnitude now in place that can assumethe role that teachers and schools performed to enrich the lives of children.

• We are no longer able to provide sufficient resources to enable schools to provide completesets of programs for all students.

• Teachers no longer feel supported, in terms of either resources or acknowledgement andvalidation.

• This is the fourth consecutive year in which schools have experienced disruptions to theiroperation. This has an impact on every school, the way it operates, its culture and the



relationships between teachers and community, teachers and parents, and teachers andstudents.

• The province is heading toward a situation that has occurred in other jurisdictions (the U.K.,New Zealand) of permanent loss and fragmentation of co-instructional programs, and ageneral deterioration of the notion of a school community.

• Over the last five years, the profession of teaching has been denigrated and diminished, withthe effect that children have also been diminished – what was in place to nurture and supportthem is being taken away. Support for teachers and teaching is disappearing.

Our Beliefs

The TDSB and its constituent partners believe that co-instructional activities:

• are an essential part of the school experience; they are critical to the complete education ofthe child and are part of a high quality education.

• contribute to a positive learning environment• extend and enrich learning• strengthen relationships within a school (among all partners) and bring school communities

together.• promote and extend values and enhance preparation for adult life• enable teachers to focus on individual student needs

• correlate with high student achievement when provided within the curricular context• reduce dropout rates, students at risk typically do not access support organizations in the

community. These programs help to broaden significantly the “definition of a successfulstudent”

• provide important support to both families and communities

and that:

• Teachers want to provide these experiences.

• Teacher leadership of co-instructional activities is essential.

• Teachers can directly connect co-instructional programs to classroom program.

• It is difficult to assign relative value to the various contributions that teachers make to co-instructional activities.

• Important aspects of school culture and tradition are closely tied to co-instructionalprograms.

• Human and monetary resources are essential to the provision of co-instructional activities.

• Only schools with strong central support (resources) have the wherewithal to provide broadlybased, quality co-instructional programs to all of their students.

• Community volunteers and parents have an important role to play in assisting teachers andstaff in the operation of co-instructional programs.



• Community volunteerism cannot replace the important role of the teacher. Conversely, astrong co-instructional program will attract and support greater community involvement.

• Co-instructional programs in which there is substantial community involvement contributegreatly to safer schools and safer communities.

• Co-instructional programs must be accessible at different levels to all students.

• There must be a broad element of choice in any school’s co-instructional program. Studentinvolvement in these programs must be by choice.

• The imposition of User Fees restricts access to programs rather than opening them up to all.

• The best co-instructional programs include all students in some way; they provideopportunities for both participation and the achievement of excellence.

TDSB Intentions

In order to provide opportunities for all students to grow and flourish in excellent learningenvironments in all schools, the TDSB will:

• provide central support (human and financial resources) to the extent possible withinprovincial funding formulae.

• require every school to work with a community-based forum each year to plan a broadlybased co-instructional program that will address the needs and interests of its students.

• provide for a system-wide forum that develops a general set of principles that will governhow schools develop and provide local co-instructional programs. This forum will besupported by policy decisions taken by the Board of Trustees.

• begin a concentrated program of informing the public about the value and importance of thecontribution that teacher volunteers make to co-instructional programs and, hence, to thedevelopment of high quality learning environments and the success of every child.

• monitor to ensure that all students have access to quality co-instructional programs and assistthose schools that are facing special challenges.

• work to facilitate a “new engagement” between teachers and parents. (Parents andcommunity must learn about the value, importance and magnitude of teacher involvement inco-instructional activities. Teachers must rely on the community in order to learn how bestthey might meet the needs of their children.)



Recommendations to the Ministry

Given the above description of our past and what we are encountering at present, and ourstatements of belief and intentions, the TDSB recommends the following:

1. That co-instructional activities be provided primarily through teacher volunteerism withthe assistance of parents and the community.

2. That the provincial government work with the federations to redefine current workload insuch a way as to provide sufficient time for teacher involvement in co-instructionalactivities on a voluntary basis.

3. That the General Legislative Grants be amended to provide the necessary fundingdedicated to Board and school support (human and financial resources) of co-instructionalactivities and to the facilitation of community involvement.

4. That the co-instructional program must be publicly acknowledged by the provincialgovernment as an integral part of the school day and of the total education of the child.

5. That the Ministry and school Boards ensure access to high quality co-instructionalactivities is available to all students.

6. That methods of recognition be developed locally, regionally and provincially toacknowledge the contribution of time and expertise by teachers and other volunteers.



Report No. 4Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

January 31, 2001

To the Chair and Members of theToronto District School Board:

A meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) convened at 5:10 p.m. onWednesday, January 31, 2001, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, withDonna Cansfield, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Sam Basra, Donna Cansfield,Sheila Cary-Meagher, Judi Codd, Bruce Davis, Christine Ferreira, Paula Fletcher, Gerri Gershon,Scott Harrison, Elizabeth Hill, Shelley Laskin, Pauline Ling, Sheine Mankovsky, RonMcNaughton, Stephnie Payne, Nellie Pedro, Patrick Rutledge, Sheila Ward and KathleenWynne.

Regrets were received from Shelley Carroll and Elizebeth Moyer.


Trustees Atkinson and Cary-Meagher declared possible conflicts of interest with regard to thematter of Secondary Teacher Negotiations as:

(a) Trustee Atkinson’s daughter is a member of OSSTF, District 12;

(b) Trustee Cary-Meagher’s daughter is a member of OSSTF, District 12.

Although on the agenda, this matter was not considered by the Committee at this meeting (seeItem 5).

Trustee Davis declared a possible conflict of interest regarding a private property matter. Themembers were not present during the discussion or voting on these matters.

55. Staff Changes for Approval

The Committee considered two reports from the officials presenting staff changes (on file in theDirector’s Office) for consideration.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the staff changes be approved.



56. Report No. 1, Business and Facilities Committee (Private Session), January 24,2001

The Committee considered property matters as presented in the above report from the Businessand Facilities Committee as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that Report No. 1, Business and FacilitiesCommittee (Private Session), January 24, 2001, be approved.

57. Alteration to the School Year Calendar 2000-2001

The Committee considered a report from the officials presenting a recommended alteration to theschool year calendar of the Toronto District School Board for the school year 2000-01.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS:

(a) That the Professional Activity Day scheduled for the secondary teachers of District 12,OSSTF, on February 9, 2001, be postponed to a date mutually agreeable to the Board andDistrict 12, OSSTF and, that February 9, 2001, be an instructional day;

(b) That the Federation Day for 2000-01 for District 12, OSSTF teachers in junior highschools be February 9, 2001.

58. Update on Secondary Teacher Negotiations

The Committee postponed consideration of this matter to a Special Board meeting on February7, 2001.




Minutes of the Toronto District School Board January 31, 2001Proposed Purchasing Policy (not adopted)


Proposed Purchasing Policy

(Not adopted, see page 41 for adopted policy)

Policy and Approvals

• Purchasing activities shall be carried out and orders awarded in accordance withBoard policy and administrative procedures.

• The Purchasing and Distribution Services Department shall be responsible for thepurchase and supply of all materials, equipment and services required by the Board,except real estate, insurance, employee fringe benefit contracts and miscellaneouspetty cash and purchase card purchases.

• The Purchasing and Distribution Services Department shall make no purchase onbehalf of employees or Members of the Board.

• All Contracts over $2 million and under $5 million, exclusive of taxes, must beapproved by the Business and Facilities Committee prior to the award.

• All contracts over $5 million, exclusive of taxes, must be approved by the Board priorto the award.

• The Director of Education, in consultation with the Chair of the Board, may approvecontracts normally requiring Committee or Board approval, during months wherethere are no scheduled meetings and report such approvals at the first scheduledCommittee or Board meeting.

Collaborative Services

• The Board is committed to working collaboratively with other boards and, whereapplicable, other public sector agencies, to develop cooperatives and shared servicesin a wider range of board operations.

Accountability

• The Director of Education shall present a report to the Board, in October of each year,outlining all collaborative ventures entered into by the Board during the previousfiscal year including the measurements and effectiveness of existing collaborativeventures.

• The Director of Education shall present quarterly reports, based on the fiscal year(September to August), to the Business and Facilities outlining all contracts over$500,000 awarded in the preceding quarter.



Proposed Purchasing Policy(Not adopted, see page 41 for adopted policy)

Administrative Procedures

Description Current Recommended

Posting of Public TendersAll requirements valued over$100,000 posted on electronicbulletin board

All requirements valued over$100,000 posted on electronicbulletin board

Contract Terms One year plus options

Three (3) to five (5) years plusup to two one-year optionsdepending on the commodity,subject to Board approval

Senior Manager – Purchasingand Distribution Services

Up to $100,000 exclusive oftaxes

All contracts up to $500,000exclusive of taxes

Director and ExecutiveOfficers

>$100,000 and up to $500,000exclusive of taxes

All contracts over $500,000and up to $2 million, exclusiveof taxes

Facilities and BusinessCommittee Approval Not applicable

All contracts over $2 millionand up to $5 million exclusiveof taxes

Board Approval

>$500,000 exclusive of taxescumulative amount if multiplecontracts result from onetender call

All contracts over $5 millionexclusive of taxes

Summer Approval None

Director in consultation withthe Chair of the Board mayapprove all contracts normallyrequiring Committee or Boardapproval and report to nextCommittee or Board meeting

Reporting to Board All contract awards over$500,000 as required

All contract awards over $2million for information and allcontracts over $5 million forapproval as requiredQuarterly reporting of allcontracts over $500,000Annual reporting of allcollaborative ventures andrelated benefits



Proposed Purchasing Policy(Not adopted, see page 41 for adopted policy)

Current Thresholds And Approval ProcessesOther Public Organizations

Organization Threshold And Approval Process

City of TorontoStanding Committee for contracts over $2millionCouncil approval for contracts over $5 million

Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board No Board approval required for any contractswithin the approved budget

Durham District Catholic School BoardNo Board approval required for any contractswithin the approved budget

Durham District School Board No Board approval required for any contractswithin the approved budget

Ottawa Carlton Catholic District School Board No Board approval required for any contractswithin the approved budget

Peel District School Board No Board approval required for any contractswithin the approved budget

Toronto Catholic District School Board Board approval for contracts over $150,000

York Region Catholic District School Board No Board approval required for any contractswithin the approved budget

York Region District School Board No Board approval required for any contractswithin the approved budget

Education Improvement CommissionCollaboration Among School Boards: Recommendations

Recommendation 1

That School Boards take immediate steps:

(a) to create policies that direct the Board to work collaboratively with other Boardsand, where applicable, other public sector agencies, to develop cooperatives andshared services in a wider range of Board operations, and



(b) to develop accountability frameworks that hold senior staff accountable forpromoting and monitoring the effectiveness of existing collaborative ventures.

Recommendation 2

That the Ministry of Education provide the leadership and resources needed to establishpilot studies to evaluate which model or models of collaboration will best support a widerange of effective and sustainable partnerships among school boards.

Recommendation 3

That the Ministry of Education, in the process of conducting pilot studies, establish andtake advise from a reference group that includes school Board Trustees; Directors; seniorand middle management staff; and representatives of employee groups, professionalassociations, and other public and private sector organizations.

Recommendation 4

That the Ministry of Education investigate the range of innovative practices that havebeen developed in existing cooperatives and consider these practices in developing amodel or models of collaboration to be tested through pilot studies.

Recommendation 5

That the Ministry of Education, in conducting pilot studies, develop a comprehensive setof principles to guide the creation of effective and sustainable models for collaborationamong School Boards.

Recommendation 6

That the Ministry of Education develop strategies to evaluate the strengths andweaknesses of the model or models of collaboration tested in pilot studies, in order toensure that School Boards and the public understand the real and potential benefits ofincreased collaboration.

Systems Contract Establishment and Management Process

Action Responsibility Time ScheduleReview and identify products andservices that lend themselves tosystems contracting

Purchasing and DistributionServices staff

Other Board staffOngoing

Strategic management assessmentand approvals


Executive Council Senior Team Information Technology

Advisory Committee

Can take up to one month to get onagendas of various committees and obtainappropriate prior approvals whererequired

Establish Customer Committee to Purchasing and Distribution Can take considerable time to co-ordinate



confirm need, develop standards,specifications and other specialrequirements

Services staff School staff Administrative department staff Other Boards’ staff

and often requires multiple meetings.Simple requirements can be handled inone month, more complex requirementsrequire multiple meetings over more time

Develop RFI/RFP/RFT

Purchasing and DistributionServices staff and obtain sign-off from Customer Committeemembers

Can take up to a month to draft, reviewwith Customer Committee and obtainappropriate sign-offs

Distribute RFI/RFP/RFT documentto supplier community


Document is normally in the market for 3to 4 weeks to allow potential vendors tobid

Receive Bids Purchasing and DistributionServices staff

Evaluate Bids


Customer Committee Bidders Presentations as

required

Depending on product/service, andavailability of Customer Committeemembers, evaluation can take from onemonth to over six months or longer(where field testing may be required)

Take Recommendations forward forappropriate approvals

Purchasing and DistributionServices staff prepare report asrequired for: Executive Council,Standing Committee, SchoolBoard

Purchasing and Distribution Services staffmust advise up to six months in advanceof intention to include a tenderrecommendation on Board agenda.Report must be ready approximately onemonth prior to School Board meeting

Finalize and award contract Purchasing and Distribution

Services staff Legal assistance where required

A simple contract may be finalized within2 weeks of awardMore complex contracts may take muchlonger

Prepare and forward informationregarding the established contract tousers

Purchasing and DistributionServices staff One to two weeks from approval of award

Contract Management Process Purchasing and Distribution

Services staff assisted byappropriate users of the contract

Ongoing during the term of the contract

User and Supplier feedback


School staff Customer Committee members

Ongoing during the term of the contract

minutes (yy-mm-dd) 01-01-10&13&17&22&31 regrets were received from: trustees sam...

Documents